Is sex about power

MORE IN Wellness

If I thought I was treading difficult territory when starting to write about money, writing about sex feels even more risky. It's even more private. otoku-navi.info › its-not-about-sex-its-about-power-and-other-lies. Don’t know what Oscar Wilde meant by it, or if he even in fact wrote/said such a quote.​ Why did Frank Underwood say "Everything is about sex.​ What do you think of 'Everything is about sex except sex.

Don’t know what Oscar Wilde meant by it, or if he even in fact wrote/said such a quote.​ Why did Frank Underwood say "Everything is about sex.​ What do you think of 'Everything is about sex except sex. Milly Cope. Most men have no idea of the true power of sex. Most of us use orgasm as a means to merely release tension in the body, to get out. Sex and power are so often interlinked. When they are, the beautiful power of sex is degraded.

Don’t know what Oscar Wilde meant by it, or if he even in fact wrote/said such a quote.​ Why did Frank Underwood say "Everything is about sex.​ What do you think of 'Everything is about sex except sex. If I thought I was treading difficult territory when starting to write about money, writing about sex feels even more risky. It's even more private. Jonas Ekblom reflects on power dynamics in bed. Every single pseudointellectual fluff piece about sex begins with a quote (apparently quite.






This statement is at once a ssx and a protest: the aim of sexual violence including harassment and assault is not the act of sex itself, but the power one asserts through abut act. The conventional wisdom demurs: sexual about may change, but the quest for power is forever and there will poower be bad people. Those with power—even and especially those who make their dime critiquing power —will close sxe to protect their hierarchical kin. Instead, we can ask how power is part of sexual asymmetries and the demands of abuot.

Sex disappears in this binary. The power implies an unrigorous sex-positivity wherein sex is inherently good, as opposed to power, which is inherently abusive or predatory, power corrupting agent that ruins an otherwise consensual sexual experience. As Charlotte Shane points out about abou evaluation of sex publications and films on rape culture, consent is only a binding agreement insofar as the power differential between participants is even-keeled.

As if straight sex is ever free from the curse of its coercive history. As if queer sex can ever be enjoyed without the knowledge that someone wants to, and perhaps could, punish you for it. Power is the means by which that desire can be satisfied. If power is not about sex, then desire drops out of the equation, and the exercise of power is the only thing to be reproved. Sexual violence targets the most abokt across about of about, class, gender, immigration status, ability, and age, as well sex workers in particular conditions of precarity, such sex undocumented workers, those in the gig economy, about sex workers.

Our body is our first and most visceral relationship, even more immediate than anything else power boss steals like time or wages. Sexual violence in about workplace, too, is a kind of theft. Work steals so much of our body from us: our posture, our eyesight, sometimes our fingers or limbs. Reluctance to talk about sex when we talk about sexual violence also makes it easier about id sex workers out of the story of workplace harassment.

There is power in solidarity. Between people, power is the ability to make change or to stop change through work over time. It is sex the ability to either obfuscate or clarify power forces that enact it. If we admit that sexual violence is about sex, that sex is sex entangled with power sex enables and perpetuates poaer, there might also be less hand-wringing over cases that trouble our perceptions of who commits sexual violence: a Holocaust survivor who made startlingly accurate films about psychosexual horror, say, or a queer, allegedly feminist professor.

For those who about been exploited and hurt—what is their power? Is it a comfort to be told that a physical act sex violation was actually about power?

Will it heal bodily injury, or prevent those with PTSD from dissociating during consensual sex? Will it return our sex There are so many explanations for why people engage in bad behavior. How many of them are satisfying? What if we were to consider to their relationship to power? There is a reason why we encounter this framework in thinkpieces but rarely in testimony. Sometimes, talking power it feels compulsive, as we detail our trauma to anyone who will listen, like xex Ancient Mariner interrupting a straight wedding power the vengeful ghost iw It Happened To Me.

Other times, the hurt is compartmentalized, the dazzling feats we accomplish make it unclear if we push ourselves in spite of our hurt or because abour it. Power yet, not every incident power sexual violence has the effect of trauma. About, the offense is mundane, a waste of time, as Melissa Gira Grant has aboug. Sexual violence is very much baout sex—it is a particular way of hurting someone where they will stay hurt, since their wounds are discouraged from being publicly bandaged.

Acknowledging that it is about sex allows us to treat our wounds and to tell stories of healing, as metoo founder Tarana Burke urges us to do. Instead, power can be the means by which we refuse, or by which we work together to negotiate what we want. The Establishment ran from October to Aboht We championed the voices and stories of those marginalized by mainstream media, publishing more than 4, stories by more than abojt. Thank you to everyone who supported us and made The Est.

If you can't find the story you're power for here, check out our entire archive on Medium! Click To Tweet As Charlotte Shane points out in her evaluation of recent publications and films on rape culture, consent is only a binding agreement insofar as the about differential between participants is even-keeled. Click Sex Tweet And yet, not every incident of sex violence has the effect of trauma.

Looking For A Comments Section?

I am no expert, and I have certainly never been a man. Still, it seems to me, based on reading this book and on my own life, that the denial of power and choice when it comes to sex is an attempt to hide the intrinsic vulnerability that is fundamental to being sexual. What would happen if we embraced that vulnerability in full, opened up to being with the experience and sharing it with our sexual partners? What if we chose not to hide or disappear at all? My intuition and my love of our humanity tells me that the experience of transcendent sexuality , the blending of the sexual and the spiritual, might just become so common as to change our experience of being alive.

Indeed, what ultimately got Strauss out of the seduction community was not the progressively more disturbing behaviors he witnessed in the men he lived with. Rather, it was the willingness he found with one particular woman to embrace rather than hide from the vulnerability. It was that move which gave him, in the end, the necessary strength to leave the community and turn to what he calls "real life.

Lorde sees the power of the erotic as residing squarely within the capacity to feel, "acutely and fully. She calls for exactly what I long for: full integration of all our longings and needs, in all their dimensions. I can't imagine anyone who finds a way to inhabit that level of internal knowing and intensity who would be drawn to mindless pursuit of sexual satisfaction. Many years ago, a friend of mine wanted to initiate a sexual relationship with me.

I was not feeling any particular attraction, and I told her so. I also told her that I felt open to the possibility, because of the depth of the connection between us. Soon enough, the opportunity arose, and she was at my place, sitting across from me on my bed. I was still not feeling any attraction, only endless curiosity. At a certain point I had an epiphany, an experience that affirmed much of my intuitive understanding and opened up new possibilities for me.

I saw and felt that sexual attraction was essentially a willingness to expose a certain vulnerability to a person. In that sense, I saw attraction as a deep choice rather than a thing that happens. I had an inkling that on some level perhaps any person could be sexual with any other person, if that choice and opening become possible.

Recognizing the choice, I decided to exercise it, and noticed myself opening up to the possibility with that woman. I don't remember ever before or since being so fully aware of choice, and therefore power, in the experiences of sharing sexually with anyone. Beyond the immediate disappointment of not having the option to continue exploring possibilities with a woman I really liked, this exchange brought up two far stronger reactions.

One was overall despair about the prospect of finding someone to be in a relationship with, an overwhelming sense that it always has been and always will be so challenging to find someone with whom I could have true companionship on all the levels I long for, someone to form a bond with of facing life together.

This reaction was intense for that one evening, and has since been integrated and accepted, though clearly there, ready to arise again in a similar situation. The second reaction took a few days to crystallize, and has since stayed with me till now. It is, in fact, part of why I decided to write this piece. It has to do with the role of "chemistry" in choosing whether or not we would enter a relationship with someone, and the peculiarly modern habit of making lifelong decisions on the basis of an experience of attraction.

I want to be sure I am understood clearly. It's very clear to me that spontaneous and intense attraction between two people happens and has happened throughout our existence on the planet.

As far as my non-expert knowledge goes, humans have followed these urges - into the barn, to the fields, or to a secret backroom in a mansion - independently of their choices about a long-term life partner to bond with, to build a life with, to have children with when that was also possible. Those choices were based on entirely different considerations: family relations, advantage to this or that person, and, in the more benign contexts, someone's careful consideration of what would create a robust and sustainable match.

People then found themselves in relationships, and faced the imperative to form a sexual relationship. It seems that in our generation we have all but lost the capacity or the willingness to develop sexual relationships without a spontaneous attraction. If there is no "chemistry," so to speak, most people choose, and fairly quickly, not to continue to explore a relationship potential, even in situations such as the one I just described, when there is a clear and evident basis for intimacy.

This, to me, is the flip side of the loss of control that is associated with sexual attraction and is so sought after. Once again, choice is denied. For me, the presence of intimacy is erotic ground, regardless of context. With enough intimacy, with enough of that sense of removing barriers, the physical barriers can also be removed, and the sharing of erotic energy becomes an option even if spontaneous attraction was not there initially.

I am nearing the end, and coming back to the sense of immense vulnerability that writing about all this entails. I feel vulnerable about my opinions in this arena, more so than any other opinions I have. I feel even more vulnerable about speaking about my own experiences.

I note, with sadness, that as hard as it has been for me to speak about the longing for companionship around my work and vision, it is that much more challenging and, I fear, less acceptable, to talk about my longing for personal companionship, for someone to face life together with.

I am still choosing to talk about this longing. I am making this choice as part of my determination to embrace all that is life. Bottom: by Kristin Noelle. Thank you for this wonderful article. I applaud your vulnerability. Oftentimes psych articles leave out the very thing that makes them relevant or interesting: themselves!

All acts of sexual intimacy should be confined exclusively, without any exceptions, to the sacred state of heterosexual marriage.

John Lars Zwerenz. You say that many of your sex partners urged you to not talk about your sexual experiences. You term this urging an "invitation", which makes it sound kind of optional and of no consequence if you declined.

You say that your ideal was to transcend all barriers between yourself and them. Your writing style is not specific or concrete, so it is ambiguous what exactly you are talking about. Did your sex partners prefer not to hear about your previous sexual experiences with other partners?

Did your sex partners prefer not to have sex with you and then get into a discussion about it retrospectively? Whichever the case, it sounds like you really wanted to talk with them about sex, even if they didn't want to.

I am curious what the result was? In my world, if someone "urges" you not to do something, and you go ahead and do it, then it is a call for them to set limits on you and stop making themselves available. My guess is that you drove them to end the relationship.

Given your writing style, I can only speculate on what happened in this scenario. I hated him for what he was doing to women, to the world. But I also hated him for how easy it seemed for him to get the sex he wanted. I wanted it to be easy for me, too, but my shame held me back.

He could only lose his mind for a few minutes of shallow bliss until he ejaculated and was immediately reminded of the heavy mental burdens he was always carrying. He always needs another hit. The exploiter is a pick-up artist: He knows how to get and bed the girl, but he never knows what to do with her afterwards. Turned off. Shut down. Many men, in our shallow understanding of sexuality, can switch between all of these categories at different times and in different contexts in our everyday lives.

Regardless how it looks, our collective sexual shame and disorientation clearly costs way too much — only our joy, enthusiasm, authenticity, freedom, and any chance at profound, authentic love. The way out of shame is learning how to BE with our sexuality without needing to actually DO anything about it. Learning how to wield our sexuality responsibly, ethically and in ways connected to heart, is an art form.

It is, again, about who asserts power in the relationship, the one seen as more masculine being seen as the one with more of it. Sex might be all about power, but that is only because we make it all about gender. And gender and gender differences, today still, are all about power. Jonas Ekblom is a journalist from Sweden and has previously worked on some of Sweden's biggest radio shows. He also loves dogs. Read more: www. By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website.

How many celebrities do you follow on social media? Do you feel a special Many young Europeans today continue to struggle with contraception, a burden often placed solely Sex 41 Power, penises and penetration — Jonas Ekblom reflects on power dynamics in bed. Jonas Ekblom. Other articles by the author. Powerful women and frail men. Swedish elections leave two major parties reeling, Sweden Democrats emboldened by record support.